Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday March 08, 2012 @09:50AM
from the best-place-to-end-your-session dept.

jones_supa writes "By reinventing the Start Menu in Windows 8, Microsoft has caused some resistance to the new Start Screen. For those longing for the classic way of doing things, Stardock comes to rescue. The Start8 is a piece of software which replicates the functionality of the button and menu found in previous versions of Windows. Supported is starting applications, the Run and Shutdown features, and search."

People get set in their ways, no question about it. Plenty of OSs don't have a start menu and they're quite usable. While I don't think the start menu is inherently bad OR good, I think people get way too hung up on the way a proprietary OS used to be - up to the point that they mod the hell out of the interface. I use MacOS and Windows 7 and Windows XP and Linux all quite regularly. People need to give more and be a little bit more mobile.

There's also something to be said for a familiar interface between systems. Although I don't take it to the extremes that some people do, I set up my Linux box to have a similar layout to my Windows box in terms of menus, icon placement, what-action-gives-what-result, etc. My Win 7 laptop is also set up similar to my Win 7 desktop even though one has a 14" screen and the other has three 22" screens, which makes for a different usage case. It's just a lot easier when going between otherwise dissimilar operating systems.

While it is no problem for the slashdot crowd, less tech-savvy users have huge problem with even the smallest change.

Here is one example:
I have a friend in his 50ties who just started to use computers and the internet. He barely known what a search engine is, and often has problems reading the small font of tool tips etc. He used IE8 and was used to type into the "Google Box" to search. Along comes the change to IE 9 and all of a sudden he has to use the URL bar to search. He has problems with that. This is not what he learned and how he expects things to work.

He also had problems when his mail client changed the Icon to write e-mails from "Mail" to "Compose".

A Hammer is a hammer is a hammer.
In the real world tools do not change how they are operated. Even cars did not change their UI in the past 100 years. And the elements that did change, are often not used by everyone. How many people do you know who do not know how to set their clock correctly? Who do not use their GPS? VCRs are/were known hard to use, because each and every one has a different way to program a recording.

While *I* love new UIs and shiny things in general, there are lots of people out there who cannot abstract computers and are lost when small things change.

I'm not sure I find it funny or what when I see all these tech guys who are supposed to be good at abstracting problems not able to grasp the idea of metaphors. When you say "A Hammer is a hammer is a hammer," I get you. People can look at the shape of it and grasp immediately what it does and don't have to ask many questions if they need to use it for the most ubiquitous of reasons around, driving in a nail. Whether it be a ball peen hammer, claw hammer, framing hammer, whatever. Even if they might not kno

Yeah, that whole brake pedal, clutch, steering wheel.. I'm just "used to it".. they should definitely tweak it a bit.

People need to give more and be a little bit more mobile.

Newsflash: people need to get work done. A good friend of mine still uses Emacs and is super productive. It's a tool, not a toy. Maybe they should provide some compelling evidence that it's worth retraining folks for the new stuff. Most of the newer UI technologies on desktop machines provide little additional productivity IMHO.

Maybe they should provide some compelling evidence that it's worth retraining folks for the new stuff.

There is an entire industry dedicated to training and retraining folks for rollout of new versions of Excel and Word and Windows, and Microsoft makes a small fortune certifying and recertifying people. I think the evidence is clear that it's worthwhile to *someone*. Just not the average user.:-)

I'll admit I get personally stuck in my ways... I tend to find efficient ways to work and it messes up my mojo every time MS needlessly messes about with things.

All of that, I can cope with.

However, it REALLY sucks when you're trying to support a computer novice. I already regularly (a dozen or more times a day) have to say something along the lines of "Ok, are you windows vista/7 or xp user? Vista? Ok, go to c:\users\YourUserName\AppData\Local\...

I don't think the problem is the start menu has gone away per se but that what has replaced it is completely inadequate for the task. It's not space efficient, it does a terrible job of presenting "classic" style apps, it lacks the compactness and finesse of the existing task bar, and the metro apps suck balls. Some things stuff like control panel is also a confusing mess of new overlay style control panels with simplistic switches and old style windowed panels all accessible through different routes. It ju

That's the same reason for why people always cry about changes in Facebook or Slashdot interface. They feel homeless.

No, they just don't want to have to learn some new crap that's worse than the old crap.

Microsoft buggered up the start menu in Windows 7 and people complained, so they used that as an excuse to completely remove it and replace it with something much worse. Users don't like software changes that make their life harder for no good reason.

Microsoft buggered up the start menu in Windows 7 and people complained

Really? I think the Windows 7 Start Menu is a considerable improvement over XP. I'll admit I was sceptical at first, but now I find that whenever I'm stuck on an XP box I really miss it.

I'm sure I'll get used to most of Windows 8's new conventions too, but as it stands I'm still not convinced that they're all a good idea - especially this idea of having to have both Metro and Regular versions of half your programs.

I think the Windows 7 Start Menu is a considerable improvement over XP.

I honestly don't see how. I rarely use Windows any more, but when I boot into Windows 7 on my laptop I can never find the program I want to run on the new start menu. As far as I'm concerned it's a disaster zone.

IT's an option. Not the only solution. Win 7 also highlights new folders, and if the application writers wants to, they can have there program launch-able from one of several reconfigured locations. Games, Devices, musics, etc..

Some people prefer the graphical user dialog box, some don't.

But if they have it, you complain, of the got rid of it you would complain.

There's many ways to access a program, it's not like you have to use the "type it's name" method if you don't wish to. You can put icons on your desktop. You can pin it to the start menu. You can navigate to the standard program list on the start menu. You can put it in the quicklaunch bar. You can create your own keyboard shortcuts.

People are bitching about this just to bitch. I've literally never had an easier time launching any program, even the ones that I use once in a blue moon, as I've had on Windows 7.

I can never find the program I want to run on the new start menu. As far as I'm concerned it's a disaster zone.

Why? It's just list of applications.

The Windows XP start menu with its flyout application menus didn't scale well. It just grows and grows with the more applications you add. For some people finding a particular item is a matter of scanning a list that fills your entire screen. Then you have the application folders which can be several layers deep, and require you to hover over a single item then move to the next menu, which can take a great deal of dexterity. Make one wrong move and the whole thing closes, and you have to start again.

The windows 7 start menu is much more sensible: and alphabetical list with clickable folders. It scales well, it doesn't require any dexterity to manipulate it. Just pin your most used applications and you're set. What is so difficult about that?

I must have a lot of dexterity then because I find setting menushowdelay in the registry to 10 ms down from 400 ms and the flyout menus in XP and the classic start menu on windows 7 to be much faster than the hover and click fest of the default windows 7 menu.

Yes, you do. I know I personally mis-click sometimes, and is almost completely unusable for my mother, whose hand trembles. The Windows 7 menu is much more usable for her, and the larger targets of the Windows 8 menu are even better still. Always remember, Microsoft is developing their operating system for billions of people, and your super human skill at navigating a flyout list doesn't even play into their decision-making processes; accessibility is a legitimate concern in the design process.

I know, right? I'm trying to imagine how the hell people are having such difficulty navigating the fucking start menu and for the life of me I can't...

If you can't navigate the extremely simple and easy to use start menu on Windows 7, get a fucking Mac already. I know kids with ages in the single digits that can utilize a Windows 7 start menu perfectly well using all the various methods for navigating to and opening a program. The problem obviously isn't Windows 7 if a person can't...

That's precisely the point. It's _NOT_ 'just a list of applications', it's a random list of applications with a random list of other crap and the place to look for the actual application you want is far from obvious.

If the Windows 7 start menu wasn't an abomination people wouldn't be telling us 'but you just have to type the name of the program'.

I really don't see your problem. The place to look for all applications is start>all programs, just as it was in Windows XP. The only differences are: instead of a giant list that fills your entire screen, you have a scrollable list; and instead of fly out menus you have clickable menus, a paradigm that has existed in explorer since forever. I seriously am missing the mental disconnect that makes this second scenario intractable for you.

If you seriously have this much trouble using the Windows 7 start menu, than I don't understand why you use a Windows PC in the first place. The start menu in 7 is fucking clown shoes simple. I can't even imagine what is causing people so much difficult here...

The windows 7 start menu is much more sensible: and alphabetical list with clickable folders. It scales well, it doesn't require any dexterity to manipulate it. Just pin your most used applications and you're set. What is so difficult about that?

I'm not seeing how the old WinXP Start Menu can't do the same. I am rarely in my start menu on XP systems - most programs I commonly use are in the Quick Launch Toolbar (which is exactly the same as "Pinning" programs). The Start menu is an alphabetical list with folders - they just fly out instead of replace the current list. I also have preference to the flyout version since I don't need to scroll to view all of my available options.

I think the Windows 7 Start Menu is a considerable improvement over XP.

I honestly don't see how. I rarely use Windows any more, but when I boot into Windows 7 on my laptop I can never find the program I want to run on the new start menu. As far as I'm concerned it's a disaster zone.

That's why the very first tweak that I applied to Windows 7 was to re-enable the quick launch bar. Essentially what Microsoft has done with Windows 8 is turn the quick launch bar into the primary desktop. This is perfect for tablets, but I'm not sure what the usability will be like for more advanced uses.

Type in the name in the search box at the bottom. If you type the full name properly, hitting enter will act as a run command (very useful for starting the command prompt: "cmd", enter, up it comes). And the pinning is nice, too, but I rarely use that.

Then it's you. Sorry, either you don't want to like it, or you are to stupid to think about it for 10 seconds

How about a third option, that applies to lots of people from Microsoft through Linux and open source.
- Someone had a way of doing things. Right, wrong, whatever, it's been the usual way for years. I learned to work with it, and got used to it.
- Someone changed their way of doing things for no particular reason and, more importantly, deprecated (read "dropped like a rock") the way that THEY THEMSELVES had been pushing as the PREFERRED way for a long time.
- Now all my reflexes, habits, and experience ar

But you certainly don't have to type the name... the common situation is you install something, and it's placed in a folder with the publisher's name that you might not know. Or perhaps you have so much software installed, your start menu fills the entire screen and it's hard to find a specific item. In those cases, it's easier to just type in the name and find it instantly rather than scan the whole list.

There are lots of us that went through organizational effort to ensure that our start menu was properly categorized and organized. If I installed a new program it typically went to one of several categories much like you see on a modern Linux install (Accessories, Games, Multimedia, Productivity, Utilities). For people who put in that extra effort to keep things clean, everything post-XP has been a letdown.

With the paths that Microsoft and most of the big Linux distros have been going down lately, I'm ac

". If I installed a new program it typically went to one of several categories"it still can, and in some case, does. This type of thing is the back bone of the start system. Stop making excuses. You want to buy a mac? buy a mac.

I would actually have to agree that might be a decent improvement in Windows 7. It sounds like they copied QuickSilver [blacktree.com]. Can't run OSX without it.:) OK, OK, you could, but QuickSilver makes launching apps trivial, and you never have to leave the keyboard.

"Key board"? What's a "key-board" on His Chosen System? Is that anything like the almighty touchscreen? It doesn't have buttons, you know, which makes it better. Or is...

Oh, wait, I remember. Wasn't a "key-board" one of those heretical things deprecated by Saint Jobs decades ago, which led us out of the Dark Age Of Productivity and into the glorious Age Of Media Consumption? Why are you bringing that old thing up? Are you a heretic in the disapproving glare of Jobs? You know people like that are almost as bad as the heathens who think some part of His Divine Interface can be improved in some way. I'm just glad you're not one of THOSE, else you would need a visit from the Black Turtleneck Squad. Now, what's "QuickSilver"?

It's certainly much faster than clicking through multiple windows to get at what you're looking for, especially as concerns control panel stuff that most people rarely use. For the 20 or so programs I use on a daily basis, they're pinned to my Start Menu and thus immediately available in a single click.

Really? I think the Windows 7 Start Menu is a considerable improvement over XP. I'll admit I was sceptical at first, but now I find that whenever I'm stuck on an XP box I really miss it.

I'm sure I'll get used to most of Windows 8's new conventions too, but as it stands I'm still not convinced that they're all a good idea - especially this idea of having to have both Metro and Regular versions of half your programs.

I completely agree. The Windows 7 start menu is perfect. Everything you need to do is right there either a click away, or a little bit of typing away. It's what the start menu should have always been. To me, it's so much nicer than XP's start menu that I feel like I've gone back to WFW 3.1 when I sit at an XP machine these days.

However, I've been kicking Windows 8 around since public release. While it performs decently, it is very cumbersome, awkward and unnatural to use on a desktop. I can see it will

Exploding menus are quick. Stopping to click on a scroll bar while navigating the start menu is a clear regression.

If only someone would create some type of wheel on a mouse to allow scrolling without clicking on the scroll bar. I think this could be handled on touchpads with a section on the side dedicated to scrolling... Just a thought. Maybe I should patent this idea!

You have to click within the menu area even before you can scroll with the mouse wheel. Then you click to expand a menu entry and then scroll again. This is still a regression from hovering and quickly navigating.

Again, the addition of search is a win, but that doesn't mean the removal of an exploding menu is.

No, they just don't want to have to learn some new crap that's worse than the old crap.

Rather, it's about not wanting to learn variations on the same damn thing over and over and over and over again. Which is a bit different than learning something new. If someone is going to have to learn yet another variant, then, to prevent angst, said variant should be pretty darned good.

I think a "menu" style application selection is bad. I can't count how many times I've bounced between different options 2 or 3 levels down and had to start over b/c my mouse moved a few pixels the wrong way.

So the solution to sometimes taking a few seconds to start an application from a menu is to force you to always take a few seconds to start an application by making you switch to a completely different screen where you have to scroll through a field of huge icons searching for the one you want?

I used it in the developer preview and it was manageable but obnoxious. The bigger issue for me was that if you clicked near the lower left corner of the screen in something like a full screen game it would still treat it like you hit the "home" button on a tablet or some such device and return you to the application selection page. After a few days of that plus the ever growing sea of tiles I got fed up and modified the registry to disable Metro and get the Start menu back. The Start menu isn't perfect, but it sure beats the one-size-fit all approach of using an interface on a PC designed under the constraints of portable devices.

There is an entire blog post about why the new menu is more efficient. Essentially, in Windows 8 the start menu scales better with resolution, especially on laptops; it engages different aspects of human memory including chunking and spacial memory that the old list menu can't engage; it's more customizable than the current start menu allowing you to make some items bigger than others, and even arrange items into groups and within groups; and most of all, Fitts' (since Slashdot nerds love citing Fitts' law)

Are you referring to Steven Sinofsky's blog? Doesn't it make sense that the developer of a particular piece of software is going to sing its praises? That blog is a part of marketing and should be taken with a boulder of salt. If you want to "prove" that the new menu is better than the old there is a way to do that. It's called science. Publish some papers. Get some peer review. Show some empirical evidence. That's how it's been done and I don't see why this should be any different if you want to be

Yes, I do have an opinion but it wasn't on whether the Start ball should be there or not. Here, let me remind you of what you said:

People screaming about the start button are, imho, idiots.

My beef is with the fact that you are referring to people that don't agree with you idiots. That's what started this whole ball rolling. I notice that a lot of windows fanboys do that. Just jump out of the gate with the insults. I usually try to be civil about it but today the only thing I could come up with was "Fuck you".

I think a "menu" style application selection is bad. I can't count how many times I've bounced between different options 2 or 3 levels down and had to start over b/c my mouse moved a few pixels the wrong way.

What infuriates me is that they stopped using "sticky" menus ten or more years ago. You want to open a file, click "file" and edit is open -- damn it, the file menu should STAY open until I make a selection or click outside the menu.

i kinda understand why Microsoft taking this stance on start menu, they need to get the Metro UI on desktop so that developers will make applications for Metro, and in turn it will help the Win8 Tablets gain massive apps in short period of time

i kinda understand why Microsoft taking this stance on start menu, they need to get the Metro UI on desktop so that developers will make applications for Metro, and in turn it will help the Win8 Tablets gain massive apps in short period of time

Why would a desktop user want to run a Metrosexual app that's designed for a tablet?

just because the app was designed for Metro UI doesn't mean it will not function as normal app would

So the OP said that the benefit of pushing Metrosexual on the desktop was that developers would build apps that would run on tablets, and now you're saying that the apps will function as normal desktop apps and therefore will be useless on a tablet?

Maybe they wanted to highlight to all the linux folks out there that they actually had a mail app. To be honest I had forgotten they actually had one. By the way they should make notepad a full screen, it is a hell of a text editor...

I can see the bitching from users already. I tried Win 8 myself and was immediately stuck on how to quit an open app or even how to run another one and switch between them. It's just not obvious, and that's going to be a problem.

When Office 2007 was rolled out at my org, even with loads of advanced notice and training, the phone was ringing for weeks "How do I print?" "How do I copy/paste?" etc, etc....

I have a better plan. Keep Windows 7 deployed for as long as XP was before upgrading users.

I should, however, be thankfully to Microsoft for all of the job security they provide.

Click and drag the screen to exit. Look, Windows 8 is a forcible union between touch pads and computers. It's an epic fail in implementation from the get go. If you're serious about applying major UI fixes to an OS not already released to the public, I'd say you have your priorities backwards. A better route would to not order any new machines with the OS preloaded. Just stick with Windows 7. The world shouted down Vista and we (the consumer) won that battle just as we have one the battle against Windows ME. The known fact that Microsoft releases a turd once in a while has been accepted as the new norm. So pull yourself up from the bootstraps and bypass this OS entirely. It's real easy!

A pity, looking at the screenshot, I was hoping that it would actually enable a taskbar while using the Metro interface. Instead, it just displays the start screen in a quarter of the display area - a size for which the Metro interface is ridiculous.
Vistart ( http://lee-soft.com/vistart/ [lee-soft.com] - no affiliation) is a better alternative if you want the start button back.

Oh, Microsoft understands it, but our convenience isn't their primary concern here. What they want is to get everyone who uses Windows to get used to a particular interface that can be directly transferred to portable devices. Once that happens, which devices do you think people will buy--the ones with unfamiliar interfaces that people will be awkward and uncomfortable with or the ones that work exactly like the computers they use at home and work?

KDE is awesome no doubt. If version 4.3 or greater (when it got good) had been available when Shuttleworth first started with Ubuntu and had he went with that instead of Gnome, and continued to refine the shit out of it I think desktop Linux might be taken a lot more seriously these days. I'm not saying Ubuntu is desktop Linux but when you mention it to normal people there is at least a chance they may have heard of it. The KDE developers seem to be pretty happy with its adoption but for I for one would

Akonadi makes a lot of sense by allowing all applications on a platform share data as a resource.

It is strigi's indexing as part of nepomuk that causes the hard drive thrashing. KDE harasses you if you try to completely disable akonadi or nepomuk, but you can disable strigi's indexing simple enough without getting harassed. It is the first thing I do in a fresh KDE environment.

I had the urge to change the metro interface to the classic one in my copy of the Developer Preview and, after some googling (google is my friend indeed), I found that it only requires changing a certain value in windows registry.
So this Stardock changes only that? Seems to be just a glorified way to set a registry value.
Citation! [mstechpages.com]

A lot of folks tend to banter back and forth over classic vs. the more modern metro and metro-like shells (such as Unity or the iOS, or Andriod). What it really comes down to is the type of user behind the computer. The more modern mobile/touch interfaces like Metro are an application-centric approach that caters best to a user who is interested in doing a specific thing quickly and easily. Older interface types with taskbars, window lists and so on are task-centric shells that cater more to power-users and/or administrators who tend to have a lot of things going on at once, and who need to be able to manage all the open applications with ease.

As such, task-centric shells are likely to always be preferred by the one group while the more average user will prefer the updated shells (even if some of them will initially complain about the need to relearn things). The most effective way to manage this situation is simple - just make sure to offer both worlds.

A good example of this is that recently Mint Linux made the move to Gnome 3, and with it, a more Application-centric shell. They provided a number of applets, and soon after a fork of Gnome 3 (Cinnamon), that were able to offer the user either extreme, and even multiple points between the two shell types. Ubuntu, on the other hand, did not really offer a choice and forced the users' hands in shifting to Unity. The result was a very large shift in popularity to Mint as the current preferred Linux distribution (as seen on Distrowatch's listings). As long as Microsoft offers a choice, I think they'll be able to keep both worlds happy. Well... as happy as can be expected for running Windows anyway.;)

I'm already using a third party FOSS replacement, Classic Start Menu [codeproject.com], in Windows 7 to replace at least one critical bit of capability that Microsoft revoked: folders in the root of the start menu. I've relied for years on being able to create and manage folders in the start menu as sub-folders to manage shortcuts. I eliminate at least one click, I can organize them by task or function, and I don't have to deal with the confusion of developers' sometimes unintuitive ways of placing their apps in Programs.

I expect the author of Classic Start Menu will shift with the tide when Windows 8 arrives and produce a new version, so I will likely just keep using it if he does and it continues to prove necessary for me. That way I eliminate even the learning curve of Stardock's rendition.

Have you ever found it faster to type the name of the program you're looking for? Press the Win key and start typing. Don't even need to waste time by using a mouse.

This assumes you can remember the name of what it is you are looking for. Different people remember things differently. I am more of a visual person, so I was happier with muscle memory to navigate between folders in order to get to something. And with everything organised hierarchically it was easy to get to what I wanted.

I do like the way MS redid things for W7 when I can remember the name of what it is I am looking for. But this deprecates browsing a system to see what is there. And that brings you

Third-party tools also gave Windows 7 back the "Classic Start Menu" that had been available from Windows 95 through Windows Vista.

Note the insignificant installed based of these tools.

When push comes to shove, this is a third-party application, which, while of great interest to a small number of devotees on their personal machines, are not a realistic (let alone desirable) option in a managed network environment. And as you're forced to use the new UI at work, you'll be less inclined to reject it at home.

The OS makers most likely know what they're doing. However, I suspect that they're being given their marching orders by the business oriented folks, who, as others have theorized, may well well want to use the Win8 platform to drive the windows based tablets and phone application markets.

I used the windows 8 developer preview and I noticed that metro was completely optional. As in, you can turn it off entirely. It's a gimmick if you're using a mouse. If you're using a touch screen like some of the newer HP desktops, it's useful.

I don't know what the fuss is about, I'll probably upgrade to windows 8 when the time comes.

Back in the early 80s, our computers were, for the most part, text-based. The OS was strictly command-line. Some software incorporated graphics, but your OS was pure text and cursor.

Then Apple made the world "ooo" and "ahhh" with the GUI. It was an instant hit. MS followed suit with Windows.

when Windows 95 came out, the vast majority of the computer-using public was very happy to see the new Start menu. It sure beat the Win 3.1 way of doing things.

Notice: for every one of these innovations, they were overwhelmingly accepted by the public as IMPROVEMENTS.

Fast-foward to 2011. People are starting to notice Linux, most use Ubuntu. Someone at Cannonical decides that the PC needs to function like a smart phone so they totally break the UI with Unity. (Yes, I know ome people love Unity..... but they are in the minority). Many Ubuntu users flee to Xfce, KDE, Mint, or some other flavor that has a UI they like. Notice how this contrasts with the above-mentioned innovations. Shuttleworth can talk all day about how "slick" Unity is but the majority of his users hate it. Does he decide to change it or at least offer an alternative? Nope, his ego prevents that... Tells us to "get used to it".

Remember.... Steve Jobs didn't have to tell us to "get used to it" when he unveiled the Mac. The public loved it. Bill Gates didn't have to tell us to "get used to it" when he unveiled Win 95. Again, the new innovation was well-received.

And now Microsoft, in all their wisdom, jumps on the "let's make the deskop look like your 'droid/iPhone!!" bandwagon. Again, are we seeing people "ooo"-ing and "ahh"-ing over Metro? Nope. Google windows 8 Metro and you'll find that most people can't stand it.

So the moral of the story is: if you build a shit sandwich, don't be surprised if your customers spit it out. And don't expect them to "get used to it" when they have other choices. And as long as there are software developers, there will always be someone out there who will gladly provide that choice.

I love the Metro interface, I own a Windows Phone and find it to be very pleasing and plan on buying a Windows 8 tablet. However, I think that for legacy users (so to speak) that windows allows you to select the new start menu or the old Windows 7 style start menu during set up. They can still metro-fie the start menu, but the start button has been around since Windows 95. They can block it out on tablet installations, etc...but the start menu is something that many people and businesses rely on (its nearly universal, not much training involved.) So Microsoft really needs to at least allow an -option- for it. They have an option for the classical view etc in Vista and 7 already...it's not a new concept.
Anyhow another thing I almost demand from Windows 8 is the ability to push metro apps to the desktop, I have no idea how or why that feature isn't there.